St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1887-10-06
JUDGE ROSS ON LIBEL.

George T. Shanks, editor of the Lon
donderry Sitter, having plead guilty to
an Indictment found against him by
the grand jury for libeling Editor c. II.
Davenport and his deceased wife, was
last week sentenced.by Judge Ross in
the Windham county court. In pass
ing sentence Judge Ross gave his views
on the question of libellious articles in
the newspapers. He said:
This so far as | know is the first SEN
tence that the court in this state has
been called upon, certainly for many
years, to pronounce in case of libel.
The offence is a common law offence.
1t has always been regarded that libel
ing a man telling what is false about
him-endangers the public peace. If
sucr a charge as the charge contained
in this paper had been published in
some of the states of the Union, 1T
would probably have been followed
with bloodshed, and might have in
vOlved the whole community, or at
least the friends on both sides.
But we are a more law abiding peO-
pie, am happy to say. But 1t Is not "a
trivial offence, for any man in public
newspaper or in public talk or prl-
vate talk, to make such charges against
a persons character, that he does not
know to be true, and may have reason
to believe are false and that he has not
investigated. A falsehOOd once set on
foot i'm that way he can never make
good by any retraction that he may
IN hn land anH
will be caught up here, and caught up
there, and thrown in mans face by
people who don't know of the retrac-
ton.
must say that the newspapers of
the state have fallen into the publica-
ton of matters of that kind, think un-
warrantably. We have certain news
papers that don't in my Judgment re-
gard the question of whether what they
are about to publish against an OppO-
nent is true or false, with any particu-
lar care but if they can get hold OF
something that they think has got IA
sting to it they don't investigate it, but
nflict the sting. Probably among GER
tain ones in the community it sells
their paper, but it seems to me a very
low motive. 1t is all wrong and it is
unlawful.
don't think we should look on this
as a very light offence. Yet what
would be light punishment for one
man would be a severe one for another.
That depends on a mans clrcum-
stances.
We have tried to take into consider
alton this matter. This is matt er
that had no acquaintance with before
it came up here in court, and perhaps
we make a mistake in our Judgment of
what we shall do. As l understand,
we have no statutory law on this sub
iect, but it is under the common law
under the head of misdemeanors, and
the punishment may be a fine or it may
be Imprisonment in the county Jail. |
don't think it can be imprisonment in
the states prison. For that reason we
prefer a fine. Our jails are not built
with the idea of confinement for pun
islIment, and they have been found de-
fective in that respect and the house of
correction has taken the place of jails
for this purpose almost wholly.
We understand from statements here
and elsewhere that this respondent is a
man of limited means, and so smaller
fine would be greater punishment to
him than a very much larger one would
to some other person. 1t should be
understood tina. when we state any
thing against mans character that we
don't know to be true, that we are do
ing very great damage, not only to that
man, but to the community and to the
peace of the state, that is liable to start
quarrels that may go on increasing
from wear to year. and be transmitted
perhaps from family to family. Such
reports set abroad without due investi-
cation and that are false, are not at all